Baures v. Lewis

Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2001 · Family Law

770 A.2d 214 (2001)

Updated August 1, 2026

Family Lawrelocationremovalcustodial parentnoncustodial parentgood faithchild will not suffervisitation

Facts

Baures, the custodial mother, sought permission to move her son Jeremy from New Jersey to Wisconsin so she could live near her parents, who were providing substantial financial, transportation, child-care, and emotional support. Jeremy had Pervasive Developmental Disorder, and his needs required specialized educational and therapeutic programming. Baures proposed that Lewis, the noncustodial father, could visit one week each month, stay free at her parents' home, and receive help with transportation costs. The trial court found Baures acted in good faith but denied removal because of concerns about the effect on Lewis's relationship with Jeremy and insufficient proof that Wisconsin educational and therapeutic services were comparable to those Jeremy was receiving in New Jersey.

Issue

Under New Jersey's removal statute and prior relocation cases, what must a custodial parent prove to obtain permission to relocate with a child over the noncustodial parent's objection, and what role does visitation play in that analysis? Applying that standard, should Baures's relocation request have been denied on the present record?

Rule

In a removal case under N.J.S.A. 9:2-2, the custodial parent bears the ultimate burden of proving two things: a good faith reason for the move and that the move will not be inimical to the child's interests, meaning the child will not suffer from it. The moving party must first present a prima facie case of those two elements, including a proposed visitation schedule; the burden of going forward then shifts to the noncustodial parent to produce evidence that the move is not in good faith or will harm the child. Relevant factors include the reasons for the move and opposition, the parties' past dealings, comparative educational, health, and leisure opportunities, the child's special needs, whether a schedule can preserve a full and continuous relationship with the noncustodial parent, the likelihood the custodial parent will foster that relationship, extended family effects, the child's preference if of age, senior-year concerns, the noncustodial parent's ability to relocate, and any other factor bearing on the child's interest.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Dana Mercer is the primary custodial parent of 9-year-old Eli in Newark, New Jersey. She seeks to move with Eli to Columbus, Ohio to live near her sister, who has offered housing and after-school care, and Dana submits school records showing comparable schools, a pediatrician lined up in Columbus, and a detailed schedule of summer, holiday, and video-call contact for Eli's father, Omar Reed.

If Omar objects only that he will lose his alternating weekend visits, which is the best result?

Explanation. The custodial parent bears the ultimate burden to prove a good-faith reason for the move and that the move will not be inimical to the child's interests. The moving parent must first present a prima facie case, including a visitation proposal. A mere change or reduction in visitation is not an independent basis to deny removal; the objecting parent must produce evidence that the change will negatively affect the child.